1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 6, 2012, the Plaintiffs: (a) leased the instant store to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 80 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 500,000; and (c) the period from December 21, 2012 to December 20, 2017, and stipulated the following special terms and conditions.

Since lessee is installed, it is possible to collect premiums and time facilities for lessee after the rent.

A lessor is not involved in the premium.

If the building is sold, the lessor bears the burden of the facility at the time of the sale of the building.

B. The Defendant leased the instant store, and immediately after the lease of the said store, carried out the toilet construction (Pipe, electric pipes, illumination, illumination, stringer, renalr, stringer, stringer, floor string), kitchen construction (the pipeline construction, steering boat construction, electric lighting construction, lighting construction, entrance), warehouse construction (the brick string construction, floor steering, ceilinging construction, electric power line construction, lighting, lighting, entrance installation), commercial building inside (the floor steering, ceiling construction, electric boat installation, electric boat installation, lighting and entrance installation), commercial building installation (the floor steering, electric boat installation, electric boat installation, and waterway construction).

(hereinafter “instant repair project”). C.

The Defendant occupies the instant store in the name of “F” in the instant store along with the wife G that operates the restaurant.

Plaintiff

On January 21, 2016, at the request of the NongHyup Co., Ltd., a creditor of A, the voluntary auction of the building of this case was commenced as Seo-gu District Court Seo- Branch H on January 21, 2016. On February 19, 2016, the Defendant reported a lien of KRW 66 million on the facility cost of the store of this case at the above auction procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the defendant is unable to exercise the right of retention because he/she did not possess the present store since he/she transferred the right of lease to G with regard to the store of this case. However, as seen earlier, the defendant occupies the store of this case with his/her wife G, so the above argument is without need to be examined further.